rudder wrote:
My question is why? Why was the landing faked? Who cares either way? What difference does it or did it make?

???

Some thoughts...

--- Russians were way ahead in space, from Sputnik to Gagarin and beyond. We "needed" to "top" them. In the 1960 election, Kennedy had run to the right of Nixon on missiles, was a serious cold war hawk.

--- Werner von Braun no doubt knew better, but accepted Apollo as a cover program for the defeat of the Soviet Union through military dominance in space. This did take place.

--- The Pentagon saw Apollo as a piggy bank to fund all kinds of "black" programs. Like those pallet loads of cash - billions - that went missing in Iraq -- remember that? No, the Pentagon isn't stupid. One place $ went besides space weapons, NSA, and HAARP could be the D.U.M.B. tunnels. That shit cost some money! But it sure never came for public debate in Congress, did it?

--- When elected, being a reckless member of a reckless family, Kennedy then made a reckless promise. Maybe he would have altered the timeline, had he lived, and we could have spent the decades needd to overcome the technical issues and do a REAL moon landing. But after he was assassinated, he very simply became a god. It was then easier to adhere to his promised timeline than to admit defeat.

-- America at the time was involved in an unpopular war and also civil rights issue. Space program was the only thing uniting us. I well remember, it was the only thing that avuncular old commie Walter Cronkite and I agreed on. Hippies, commies, right-wing, Black, White -- everyone was proud. Bread and circuses, keep the masses happy.

--- It's not like governments have never lied to look good. Like Soviet factories faking production figures to meet outlandish quotas set by state planners under Stalin etc.

Another personal reason for a genius scientist like von Braun to go along with the cheesy Apollo deception may be deduced form the conclusion of this HA thread:

Hitler was still alive, and von Braun, wired in both with ex-Nazis AND the CIA/Pentagon, was certainly in a position to know it. Therefore, he may have simply enjoyed showing the Old Man, retired in Bariloche, that a German could still beat the Russians at something.

Moretorque wrote: I have never studied the moon landings in detail but Russia never did contest it and if it was faked they would have let the whole world know about it.

Other way around. Once you look at the video and see that it WAS faked, then the interesting question arises about why Russia didn't rat us out.

Probably a case of mutual blackmail, i.e. the Russians knew we had the goods on them, so they didn't dare expose the hoax, assuming it is one. Supposedly, something like 9 other cosmonauts went up into space before Yuri Gagarin did, but died up there. Maybe we knew about that, but kept it secret. Or maybe the US and USSR, for all their Cold War rivalry, were actually secret allies on another level.

Now that I understand the whole system pretty well it only makes more sense they would fake the moon landings, it is actually better for them to fake it than to go because they are building a civilization based on the lie and they would want to test and perfect the lies on the masses to see what they could get away with in quest for world domination.

They never really envisioned the net popping them however but once you understand the USA republic was pretty much dissolved in the 30's and the lying counting houses out of Europe completely took it over from there it makes complete sense for them to do the fake.

These gangsters have been lying century after century after century to perfect and maintain their power structure.

I agree. We never went to the moon or nor have we been higher than a certain altitude, the number which I don't have committed to memory. I'll raise you one though. The earth is FLAT; and while we're on the hoax topic, the Titanic didn't sink. It was a rebadged, damaged sister ship that was unrepairable & uninsureable that was 'sunk' to make it look lie the Titanic was the one that did.

Did any of you see the new video footage of Stanley Kubrick confessing to faking the Apollo moon landings? lol. It was allegedly from an interview with him done just before he died 15 years ago. It looks a lot like him but many on YouTube are saying it's a hoax. What do you all think? Here is an excerpt from it.

I'm not generally into conspiracy theories, but this one makes sense. Sending men to the moon would cost a fortune. Pretending to send men to the moon would save money and would communicate to the Russians that we had such precise missile technology, that we could fire a missile with men on it and put those men on the moon and return it. Just the credible threat might have been enough to reinforce our point. We win the space race, which helps our own country feel more confident. The Russians may think we did it.

What is the motivation to actually do it? The Cold War provided plenty of motivation to lie about it.

As far the videos, aren't they supposed to be re-enactments? Is the official story that these photos are actual photos from the moon or recreations, with the originals licked away for security reasons? Why can't we see stars all around the earth if they are real? If the moon does not have an atmosphere, wouldn't the view of space away from the sun be very clear?

MrMan wrote:I'm not generally into conspiracy theories, but this one makes sense. Sending men to the moon would cost a fortune. Pretending to send men to the moon would save money and would communicate to the Russians that we had such precise missile technology, that we could fire a missile with men on it and put those men on the moon and return it. Just the credible threat might have been enough to reinforce our point. We win the space race, which helps our own country feel more confident. The Russians may think we did it.

What is the motivation to actually do it? The Cold War provided plenty of motivation to lie about it.

As far the videos, aren't they supposed to be re-enactments? Is the official story that these photos are actual photos from the moon or recreations, with the originals licked away for security reasons? Why can't we see stars all around the earth if they are real? If the moon does not have an atmosphere, wouldn't the view of space away from the sun be very clear?

There are probably multiple reasons for something as big as this. Besides the one you mention, they may have wanted to get people's minds off the Vietnam War and other tragedies. And give them a reason to be proud Americans again. Unless you are one of the ruling class, you can't understand their mentality. One of their jobs is to give the masses a show of "bread and circuses".

It's not only expensive to go to the Moon. But too dangerous as well. If astronauts had died on the first Moon Mission or failed to come back, it would have been a public relations disaster and the end of NASA. Yet in all 6 moon missions, not one astronaut died. What are the odds? Yet about 14 people have died on the space shuttle.

The biggest reason it was a hoax is that if it were real, then there would be moon bases by now and daily flights there. Technology never moves backward like that to near zero. As of today, NASA says it forgot how to get to the moon. Too many suspicious lies and claims. That's why NASA stands for "never a straight answer".

As to your last question. No the Apollo photos and videos are supposed to be real. They are not claimed to be re-enactments. In fact, Hollywood has never made a movie about the Apollo Moon Landings, because if they made it look too real, people would wonder if they faked it. So they never do it. The closest they've come is doing the movie "The Right Stuff" about astronauts training on Earth. And also "Apollo 13" with Tom Hanks. But that took place mostly in space inside a craft.

As to the stars, well it's not easy to photograph stars. Your camera has to be at the right exposure settings. Go outside at night and try to take photos of the stars and you will see what I mean. They won't show up unless you have a special camera with the right exposure settings. Only advanced cameras can do that. But the Apollo astronauts were not there to photograph stars. They were there to explore the moon. They did not bring a telescope with them. So they have a legit excuse not to photograph the stars.

However the problem is that Neil Armstrong claimed that he saw no stars on the Moon. He said this in the Apollo 11 Press Conference, and in an interview later on (which I will post later). Yet in spite of that, the field of astronomy clais that on the Moon you can see stars very clearly. They should be brighter and more vivid than on Earth. So Armstrong screwed up majorly and NASA cannot explain it.

Moreover, Michael Collins, the third Apollo astronaut besides Armstrong and Aldrin, wrote in his book "Carrying the Fire" that he could see many stars vividly and brightly while he was in the command module orbiting the Moon, thus contradicting Neil Armstrong and himself too, because he also said during the Apollo 11 Press Conference that he could not see the stars either, in order to not contradict what Armstrong said.